Not to pig pile on you Wicht, but I think your solutions are venturing off into house rules almost right away. A 1st level PC classed character is often quite a bit stronger than every day Joe. You could build a character not particularly good at anything, but it'd be tough work (note, this is different from making choices as you level that lead to a gimped character. I'm assuming you want an eventually effective character, just not one at start, right?)
If you wanted this in 4E you'd have to bash it in just like in 3E. In both cases though, it seems like it would be pretty easy. Just withhold all/most of a classes abilities until they have earned the right to be heroes.
Cheers! :)
Since it was brought up before, I'm curious as to what kinds of limitations people think that 4th Edition has over 3rd Edition in terms of storytelling.I haven't been following all the 4th edition rules snippets, but I gather that I wouldn't be able to use a red dragon as a player character.
I'm not saying that I would ever want to, and I'm not saying that 3.5 edition's rules for it are any good, but you asked...
:)
Actually, you potentially could, and it would work like it should. Over at Gleemax, one of the things I was doing was taking monsters and trying to build them as 4E races using the elf racial block as a loose guideline.
I didnt try to take an existing monster, like a mind flayer, and lump all the mind flayer abilities into the race. I picked a few iconic mind flayer things and put them in the racial block, and made some of the rest as feats that you could pick up later.Yeah, a mind flayer PC wont look and act exactly like a mind flayer: the mind flayer monster might get some things that the mind flayer PC wont, but the PC version will have many more things that she can do as well.
For a red dragon, I would grant +2 Str, +2 Con, dragon breath (as a dragonborn), fire resistance, and perhaps a bite attack. The player could opt to pick feats to increase the breath weapon, AC value, bite attack, fire resistance, and flight.
It would perform its function of being a PC race (which is what I would design it for), without all the swingy racial abilities that could add up to a broken "monster class".
Since I started this shebang off witha quote from Mike Mearls over at ENWorld, I figured you guys might like to see where the conversation over there has gone since then. Interestingly enough, ENWorld's thread has followed a similiar path to ours for the most part. Below are two posts directed to Mearls as well as his responses. I've included the posts he is responding to to provide context for his reply.
My observation (and my own experience) is that players are/were extremely receptive to "more fun" rules, and rightly vested a lot of trust in Lead Developer Mearls, but that spines started stiffening when it came to the setting changes.
It's a silly thing, yes-- but can you explain why it is "more fun, more enjoyable, and more interesting" for the succubus to be a devil, not a demon (just to pick a random example I personally don't give a fart about)?
I think the flavor issues boil down to a simple issue: what does it change at the table? Does it make more sense for a subtle manipulator to work for devils, or for demons?
On that score, I think the change does make the game more fun, because it places a creature in a better context. You aren't stuck building your devil adventure, wishing that the succubus was in the devil column. If you have to go through a series of design contortions for that classification to make sense, it's time for that classification to go.
In a way, it's about applying a sense of balance of sorts to monsters. Orcs are big brutes, so we don't design them as great archers. That's more of a gnoll thing. Goblin archers are better snipers. On one hand, design restrictions like that might seem needlessly limiting, but the payoff is that each monster type does a better job of exerting its unique flavor and feel at the table.
I think that's in direct contradiction to the point you just made for the succubus.
If I am designing an Orc adventure, and I am looking for a good archer, he's over here in the Gnoll column.
"All orcs are brutes" and "All gnolls are archers" might do a great job of exerting the flavor and feel of "EveryOrc" and "EveryGnoll" but I am not sure that "unique" is the term I would use to describe a catch-all specialty of an entire race of creatures. Mog the Orc Archer is unique-- and if he's better suited as a gnoll, well...
It isn't quite that simple. We still want to map all the humanoid types to the different roles, but we'd like to express that flavor in those roles. Here's an example:
Gnoll Controller: This guy throws bolas to bring down the pack's prey. He's good at tripping people with ranged attacks, and he can also throw nets that restrict movement. These tactics work well with the rest of the gnolls who want to crowd around a target. He might also have an encounter power that lets gnolls shift 2 or 3 squares as an immediate action, to help pile on a downed foe.
Orc Artillery: This guy carries a huge crossbow, heavy throwing hammers, or maybe those orc shot puts from Sword & First, a weapon that's inaccurate but delivers a devastating shot, maybe with a push 1 to allow the orcs room for manuever. The captures the brute feel of orcs. He carries a two-handed weapon and, compared to typical artillery monster, is pretty good in melee and has more HP but a lower AC.
The concept is that we want every role to exist within a creature type, but we want to flavor those roles to match that type. The danger of the role system is that it could lead to bland design, with all artillery looking alike, and so on. To push monsters apart, we create "tent pole" mechanics and flavor and then design around that.
With respect to devils and demons, the succubus's MO fits devils better. A similar creature cast as a demon might use more brutal, direct methods to achieve a similar end. For example, a demon that uses illusions to appear beautiful or horrid, depending on its goals. In beauty mode, it can prevent others from attacking it, and use mind control to turn enemies into its puppets. In horrid mode, it creates an aura that drives enemies away and causes them to attack creatures at random.
We have to accept that sometimes people won't like our classifications, but I think they're important for creating a design blueprint going forward. The game is a lot more fun if gnolls, orcs, demons, devils, and goblins all have significant differences, especially since the design structure could facilitate lazy design that lets monsters blur into each other. You could plug in baseline numbers by role and level and the game functions fine, but fine isn't good enough. We want something evocative and flavorful.
There's a lot to dissect in that quote. As before, please discuss!
Cheers! :)
Edit: Hopefully once stupid work is over I'll have time to dissect the quote some myself! :P
|
EDIT: The main issue with me is just the fact that so many 'small' things have been changed so that the whole of it feels different. There was a thread a while back, before details about 4e came out, asking what was D&D to you. So many of the things I wrote (and agreed with) there as being the D&D experience to me have been discarded that it just feels like a whole different game.
That's fair. I agree that many small things, and some big things, have indeed changed. I can see why that would raise concerns.
All I can say is that playing 4e with the quickstart rules and pre-gen characters still feels like D&D.
Actually, you potentially could, and it would work like it should. Over at Gleemax, one of the things I was doing was taking monsters and trying to build them as 4E races using the elf racial block as a loose guideline.I haven't been following all the 4th edition rules snippets, but I gather that I wouldn't be able to use a red dragon as a player character.
I'm not saying that I would ever want to, and I'm not saying that 3.5 edition's rules for it are any good, but you asked...
:)
The fact that you came up with some house rules for playing monsters doesn't mean that 4E allows it. I could say that my chess king has 7d8+7 hit points and a charisma of 18, but that doesn't mean the rules of chess are a superset of D&D!
|
A 1st level PC classed character is often quite a bit stronger than every day Joe.
Only if your average everyday Joe is a 0 level commoner. My 3e experience has been that while by the book this is supposed to be the way it works, in truthfulness most named PCs have at least a couple of levels in most publications.
As far as house rules, I've always felt that about 2nd-4th level was a better average for your average Joe which makes starting PCs more like your average slightly trained newbie. Which is what they are. And the rules lend themselves well to this assumption.
We'll have to wait and see how well this sort of worldbuilding works with 4e.
The fact that you came up with some house rules for playing monsters doesn't mean that 4E allows it. I could say that my chess king has 7d8+7 hit points and a charisma of 18, but that doesn't mean the rules of chess are a superset of D&D!
The point was that just because Wizards hasnt released an "official" book on various monsters-gone-races book doesnt mean that they arent going to, but that if they did, its very likely to work waaay better than the previous incarnation did.
Of course, 4th Edition cant stop me from inventing such a race and putting it into play. In my first 4th Edition campaign, one of the guys is playing a centaur.
I dont get the adding D&D descriptions to chess, but, okay. :-)
A 1st level PC classed character is often quite a bit stronger than every day Joe.Only if your average everyday Joe is a 0 level commoner. My 3e experience has been that while by the book this is supposed to be the way it works, in truthfulness most named PCs have at least a couple of levels in most publications.
As far as house rules, I've always felt that about 2nd-4th level was a better average for your average Joe which makes starting PCs more like your average slightly trained newbie. Which is what they are. And the rules lend themselves well to this assumption.
We'll have to wait and see how well this sort of worldbuilding works with 4e.
Well, my comeback would be that a named NPC the party interacts with probably isn't everyday Joe (and were Joe to appear, he likely wouldn't merit more than a line saying "Joe, HP 4") :P
If you wanted to go the route you describe, however, I'm not sure why you couldn't still do that in 4E. Sure the characters might be stronger, but then everyone else is too so they're still "the new guys", so to speak.
You do bring to mind some really awesome house rules I found over at ENWorld back in the day. An XP Progression was invented for NPCs, depicting roughly how fast they leveled up facing their everyday challenges (feed the cows, flatter the milkmaids, whatever). Most middle aged NPCs faced enough challenges to reach 3rd or 4th, with elderly types reaching 5th or 6th (this setting only used humans in order to avoid everyday Elf from being 20th+). I'm not really doing it justice so I'll just stop trying to, but let me say it was a very good representation of a simulationist view of the DnD.
Cheers! :)
|
|
All I can say is that playing 4e with the quickstart rules and pre-gen characters still feels like D&D.Do you find it interesting that some of the playtesters that have posted here do not? I will be interested to hear from more of the playtesters when the non-disclosure is lifted.
Well the playtesters were playing a less than complete set of rules. Some of those rules changed, and some may no longer exist. Their experience may not reflect my own because they may have been playing a very different game.
In addition - and I hate to sound like i am wearing a tinfoil hat - who knows if these folks are actually playtesters. Anyone can claim to be and we have now way of knowing unless verified.
I still think there are a lot of people out there that simply do not want people to like 4e and they will say anything to add to their cause. The same goes for the 4e apologists that do not want to hear anything negative. That is why I am talking about my direct experience. I am going to talk about the good and the bad. So far it has been good but I am sure there will be things that come up that I will not like. You'll hear about those too.
Since it was brought up before, I'm curious as to what kinds of limitations people think that 4th Edition has over 3rd Edition in terms of storytelling.
Huge differences. The most important one being the shrinkage of the planes to the Shadowfell, Feywild etc. This takes off a great deal of variety and versatility in the name of straightforwardness. Same thing about the modifications of demons, angels and the like (which of course is linked to the modification of the structure of the planes).
The alignment consideration does affect countless D&D modules that were built around the concept of Good vs. Evil, Chaos vs. Law.
The modifications of the basic array of classes influences the types of NPCs any particular DM will imagine and put to use at his table.
The notion that creatures/NPCs and Player Characters do not work according to the same rules does have an effect on the storytelling as well by putting an emphasis of a psychological "us" and "them" attitude in meta-game. There's us, PCs, then the rest of the world around us.
The lesser lethality of the system affects the storytelling of course, as well as the power sources, at-will powers and such, which make for a "higher" default fantasy game.
The limitations on multiclassing compared to 3rd edition influence the feel of the character in the game (like any mechanical change would, in any case) and how a player represents his alter ego in his/her own mind, since what it does and can do are handled differently by the game mechanics. Here, for instance, I'm not a fighter-thief. I'm either a fighter dabbling in roguish ways, or a rogue with a some modicum of a fighter training.
There is more, of course, but these examples should give an idea as to the impact of the changes on the game itself that would make some think it is more limited with 4E.
The point was that just because Wizards hasnt released an "official" book on various monsters-gone-races book doesnt mean that they arent going to, but that if they did, its very likely to work waaay better than the previous incarnation did.
Of course, 4th Edition cant stop me from inventing such a race and putting it into play. In my first 4th Edition campaign, one of the guys is playing a centaur.
It just seemed like kind of odd logic, that's all.
"There are no holes in the rules, because even if there is one, I can make something up."
"There are no holes in the rules, because even if there is one, I can make something up."
Of course, the reasoning also works whenever 3rd edition (or any tabletop role-playing game really) is concerned. It's a moot argument, in and of itself.
As to the wider argument Mike Mearls uses here: basically, what he says amounts to "people criticize 4E because they think the tradition of the game overrides any improvement of the fun, interest and enjoyment values the game provides."
This is a flawed argument, because it defines "fun", "interest" and "enjoyment" as objective values that you could objectively "improve" with alternate game designs.
This is inaccurate.
The truth of the matter lies in the way (the HOW) a game provides fun, interest and/or enjoyment to its users. The "HOW" is what truly matters here. Each and every player of the game enjoys different elements of the game itself. Of course, one can deduce some tendencies among a pool of users of the game, but there are always exceptions.
No Vancian magic, for instance, is not an objective way of making the game more fun. It makes the game more fun for the players who find the Vancian management of resources unfun to begin with. So this is a change that will cater to a particular type of user.
Any change introduced in a game can be determined as such (i.e. catering to particular users of the product who yearned for the change). This is why the notion of objective improvement of any game is flawed. "Improvements" are relative to the person considering said changes. It depends on the time, circumstances, and particular opinions of particular users when these changes are introduced.
My bottom line really is that different people find different aspects of a game "fun". Changing this or that mechanical element of a game is not an objective improvement in and of itself. It will make some users have more fun, and others will find the resulting game less fun.
That's what's happening here, as far as the game mechanics are concerned. WotC believes that the changes introduced cater to the majority of its costumers, and thus will improve the standing of the game as far as these customers are concerned. I hope they're right, as far as the revenues are concerned.
|
bunches of stuff
Mearls was the one calling 4E detractors idealogues, which is defined "a fanciful theorist or spectator." In my book, that makes him an ideologue, as in "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology," said ideology being the primacy of gamist considerations in RPG design.
Look, I don't know the guy and have no particular ill-will toward him, although I will say the design work I've seen by him (mostly his pre-WotC work for Malhavoc, such as Iron Heroes and Mystic Secrets for AE) was spotty, IMHO.
I do, however, think there is plenty of room for disagreement about the proper mix of gamism, simulationism and respect for tradition and continuity in D&D. And I get hacked off when Mearls and others in favor of the design approach taken with 4E write off their opponents as grognards and "fanciful spectators." As the ongoing 3e/Pathfinder/4e split shows, there are a lot of different opinions on the matter, and WotC/Mearls don't have a monopoly on good game design.
Huge differences. The most important one being the shrinkage of the planes to the Shadowfell, Feywild etc. This takes off a great deal of variety and versatility in the name of straightforwardness. Same thing about the modifications of demons, angels and the like (which of course is linked to the modification of the structure of the planes).
Antioch was not saying that the 4E fluff is the same as 3E. Antioch's question is why it's impossible to tell the same stories told on previous editions using 4E mechanics.
Obviously the Great Wheel isn't the 4E official cosmology, but a more accurate question is: Why is it impossible to use the Great Wheel using 4E mechanics? How could many DMs (including me) managed to never use the Great Wheel as cosmology in decades of playing?
Note: I disagree with the "sacrifice of versatility of favor of straightforwardness" thing. The older planes (Limbo, Pandemonium, Acheron, etc.) can still exist as Astral Dominions, rather than being planes themselves. In fact, I'm pretty sure that some of them will appear as Astral Dominions on the upcoming 4E Manual of the Planes.
The demons are more different than devils than ever. The 3.5E archons, devas and eladrins had different names but in practice, they were all too similar.
And if you took the opportunity of reading Worlds & Monsters... Shadowfell/Feywild/Elemental Chaos rock! They have enormous diversity and complexity inside them, rather than being a mere representation of a certain idea or alignment. You can make an entire campaign within each of them. I doubt anyone made an entire 3.5E campaign set on, for instance, Acheron, or Nirvana, or the Elemental Plane of Air, or the Para-Elemental Plane of Steam. Some planes received a bit more attention, like Nine Hells and the Abyss, but it seems that most planes were included for the sake of simmetry, not versatility.
The PCs should be able to start as "non-heroic". Why not?
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I take from your comment.
PC's can start off as "normal" or "level 0" characters if you will, and then through roleplaying, could have some life changing event occur, effectively allowing them to take a level in a heroic class?
Brilliant!
(Yes, this was possible to do in 3.x, but wasn't a smooth transition . . )
My bottom line really is that different people find different aspects of a game "fun". Changing this or that mechanical of a game is not an objective improvement in and of itself. It will make some users have more fun, and others will find the resulting game less fun.
Agreed.
One other thing -- I think the developers' notes they've been releasing over the past months have been a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it's interesting to see some of the developers' ideas and rationale behind various changes. But on the other hand, every time I see a statement like "People hate the way grappling works, so we made it better!" (for instance), it's a bit of a turn-off for me (since I mostly like the current grappling system).
Note: I think most of the 4E changes are great ideas!
Huge differences. The most important one being the shrinkage of the planes to the Shadowfell, Feywild etc. This takes off a great deal of variety and versatility in the name of straightforwardness. Same thing about the modifications of demons, angels and the like (which of course is linked to the modification of the structure of the planes).
You mean shrinkage of one kind of cosmology setup that wasnt even used in anything except, what, Living Greyhawk? As has been said, Forgotten Realms and Eberron use different cosmologies, and everyone invented their own cosmology in all the homebrew games that I've played in.
If you really liked the Great Wheel, you can still use it. No one is stopping you.
The alignment consideration does affect countless D&D modules that were built around the concept of Good vs. Evil, Chaos vs. Law.
I dont see any reason you cant do a good vs evil/order vs chaos-type campaign. Thats my basic concept with my 4th Edition campaign, anyway. Sure, there arent a slew of effects that explicitly target alignment, but I didnt need them anyway.
The modifications of the basic array of classes influences the types of NPCs any particular DM will imagine and put to use at his table.
A DM is limited in creating NPCs by the existing classes? From the looks of things, DMs wont be using classes to really built NPCs from the ground up, but the roles in the Monster Manual to get a NPC or monster that does exactly what she wants it to do.
So, I suppose that if I want a druid-type NPC, I just figure out what the point of having the druid in the first place is, and give it what it needs to fulfill that purpose.
The notion that creatures/NPCs and Player Characters do not work according to the same rules does have an effect on the storytelling as well by putting an emphasis of a psychological "us" and "them" attitude in meta-game. There's us, PCs, then the rest of the world around us.
PCs were already different from NPCs, since they got better point-buy, rolled hit points (as well as max hit points at 1st-level), got more class features, and DMs probably cared more about a character's negative hit points than a monster.
The disparities were there, its just that now I can just say that a NPC can do a certain thing without going through the hoops to assure myself that his or her abilities are "legal".
Of course, most D&D games are about the player characters, since they are special.
The lesser lethality of the system affects the storytelling of course, as well as the power sources, at-will powers and such, which make for a "higher" default fantasy game.
The game isnt less lethal, its less swingy. If your campaign calls for character death for whatever reason, it might be easier to orchestrate it than it was before.
The limitations on multiclassing compared to 3rd edition influence the feel of the character in the game (like any mechanical change would, in any case) and how a player represents his alter ego in his/her own mind, since what it does and can do are handled differently by the game mechanics. Here, for instance, I'm not a fighter-thief. I'm either a fighter dabbling in roguish ways, or a rogue with a some modicum of a fighter training.
Multiclassing appears to be more flexible, in that whatever you do, its going to work. Its not going to mostly work or work okay in certain situations.
I also think that it makes character concepts more mutable. You dont HAVE to have levels in a certain class to label yourself as such.
For example, lets look at your fighter-rogue concept. A fighter-rogue is basically a fighter that can maybe find traps and who also has Sneak Attack. You can do this in 4th Edition by taking Rogue Training and also snagging Trapfinding. The difference between these two concepts is that your character isnt going to fall behind in attack bonus and is actually better geared towards doing the rogue job of finding and disabling traps.
We can also do this backwards by going rogue-fighter. This type of character is basically a rogue who hits slightly better, but also has a slew of mostly useless weapon and armor proficiencies. A rogue isnt going to run around in heavy armor because of the massive skill penalties. You can do this concept in 4th Edition as well by taking Fighter Training. You wont officially get all those armor proficiencies, but then you werent likely going to use them anyway. Again, the difference is that the rogue isnt going to fall behind in her skills in order to get some bonus feats and a slightly better attack bonus.
I get that the mechanics are different, I just dont see how its going to prevent me from telling the same stories as I did in 3rd Edition. For example, I plan on converting Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, the rest of Age of Worms, and even Savage Tide to 4th Edition.
Nothing I've seen seems to prevent me from doing this.
The alignment consideration does affect countless D&D modules that were built around the concept of Good vs. Evil, Chaos vs. Law.
As you probably already now, there is still Good and Evil, Chaos and Law. The only difference is that now there are other conflicts happening, like Creation vs. Destruction (Astral Sea vs. Elemental Chaos), and Nature vs. Corruption (World vs. Far Realm). Everything you could use before you can still use - but now the fluff suggests additional things you can use.
And if you took the opportunity of reading Worlds & Monsters... Shadowfell/Feywild/Elemental Chaos rock! They have enormous diversity and complexity inside them, rather than being a mere representation of a certain idea or alignment. You can make an entire campaign within each of them. I doubt anyone made an entire 3.5E campaign set on, for instance, Acheron, or Nirvana, or the Elemental Plane of Air, or the Para-Elemental Plane of Steam. Some planes received a bit more attention, like Nine Hells and the Abyss, but it seems that most planes were included for the sake of simmetry, not versatility.
No, I haven't read Worlds and Monsters for ethical reasons that have nothing to do with the topic (I don't pay for ads, basically).
I read and own all old and new World of Darkness games (which use really close concepts, if you know them), all the bits and pieces we've had for free, and I agree with you, Shadowfell/Feywild etc can certainly be awesome themselves, no question about it.
It's strange though, because I never considered any plane to be a "mere representation of an alignment". I sure would use some planes as center-pieces of an entire campaign. There's nothing I think I couldn't do there. Weird to me that you would think of this much broader multiverse as something of a limitation, really.
|
|
Huge differences. The most important one being the shrinkage of the planes to the Shadowfell, Feywild etc. This takes off a great deal of variety and versatility in the name of straightforwardness.
I see it the opposite way - single purpose planes detract from variety and versatility. The Shadowfell has quite a variety of inhabitants, some of which are in conflict. It seems to me that the new cosmology has added more depth and complication to the D&D universe.
|
|
Since it was brought up before, I'm curious as to what kinds of limitations people think that 4th Edition has over 3rd Edition in terms of storytelling.Unskilled farmboy with not a lot of ability but much potential.Out of curiousity, how would you do that in 3E? I don't remember any rules for 0th level characters (although I guess you could make some up using the apprentice rules in the DMG ...)
Cheers! :)
It's strange though, because I never considered any plane to be a "mere representation of an alignment". I sure would use some planes as center-pieces of an entire campaign.
Some of the planes, yeah, and I myself said that. Now, most of them, certainly not. The thing is, most of 3E planes are simply too bland and too specific. Does Acheron, Pandemonium, Nirvana, the Para-Elemental Plane of Ooze or the Quasi-Elemental Plane of Salt can be cool? Yeah, certainly, and they may be inspiration for a couple of adventures. But what probably the 4E designers thought is... do they really need to be planes? Heck, some dungeons are for more interesting and suggest a lot more plot ideas than entire planes.
Does Carceri really need to be a plane of its own? Why it couldn't be simply the realm of a cruel Primordial with tastes to imprision beings for millennia - to ammend his rage of being himself imprisioned?
There's nothing I think I couldn't do there. Weird to me that you would think of this much broader multiverse as something of a limitation, really.
Correct, but from a practical point of view, a plethora of uninteresting and bland planes still occupies space, and reduces the focus you can give to the "cool" planes. If you want to have a Quasi-Elemental Plane of Radiance in your cosmology, you will have to include it on your Manual of the Planes and reduce the amount of description given to Nine Hells, for instance. And I bet that most people would rather have more information about Nine Hells than the Quasi-Elemental Plane of Radiance.
I do, however, think there is plenty of room for disagreement about the proper mix of gamism, simulationism and respect for tradition and continuity in D&D. And I get hacked off when Mearls and others in favor of the design approach taken with 4E write off their opponents as grognards and "fanciful spectators." As the ongoing 3e/Pathfinder/4e split shows, there are a lot of different opinions on the matter, and WotC/Mearls don't have a monopoly on good game design.
I understand, but... really, what do you want them to do?
WotC is a company.
A company which sells a product.
And it's always going to say that their product is better.
And if the product is clearly strong on X and weak on Y, they are going to say that X is infinitly more important than Y.
Suppose that software company A makes a product which has good performance but crappy interface, and software company B makes a product with excellent interface but awful performance.
You can be sure that if you argue with someone from company A of how their product has an horrible interface, you are going to hear "And who cares? It has the best performance in the market? Interface is not a big deal because you get used to it after some weeks bla bla bla..." And you will hear an analogous response from company B.
The fact is, D&D 4E is clearly strong on gamism and weak on simulationism. Obviously, WotC is going to market 4E by saying that gamism is more important than simulationism. You may not agree with them, but there is no need to feel offended with that. They probably know that there are a lot of simulationists around there - if there weren't, they wouldn't go to great lengths to convice the public that gamism is superior.
|
|
I understand, but... really, what do you want them to do?
WotC is a company.
A company which sells a product.
And it's always going to say that their product is better.
And if the product is clearly strong on X and weak on Y, they are going to say that X is infinitly more important than Y.
Um, I expect my hobby game company to act in a more honest and forthright manner than Microsoft?
Look, I understand that they're out to make money, but that doesn't mean they have to sling the BS so thick.Obviously, Paizo's decision to not directly support 4E has alienated some customers, the same way WotC divorced a significant chunk of the D&D player-base when it opted to toss 30 years of game history in the holy name of gamism.
But Paizo seems to be doing pretty damn well without name-calling their previous customers. They're able to call a spade a spade (ie "We're not digging the direction of 4E, we think others agree with us, so we're catering to them") without resorting to "OMG! Pathfinder is so awesome!!!!! It's got gnomes!!!! It's so much better than 4E it's like the second coming of Gygax!!!!!" It also helps that they consulted their customers about their desires rather than designing a radically different game in secret, then telling them what was best for them.
The reason that I've largely written off WotC as a company is not because they feel the need to pimp their product, but because they seem unable to do so without calling those who disagree with them or have concerns whiners and dinosaurs. Hell -- look at some of the recent feedback from playtesters on ENWorld. Those who wrote in concerns about some of the 4E changes have said they were basically written off as "simulationists" and ignored.
I'd just like WotC to be more honest and say, "There were several different approaches we could have taken, we chose X because of A, B, and C. We understand it's not for everyone, but we think this is the best way to go as a business."
If they'd handled things that way, I still wouldn't buy 4E, but I might pick up the occasional SWSE book or pack of minis. As it is, I don't think I'll be buying anything with the WotC logo on it.
|
|
I'd just like WotC to be more honest and say, "There were several different approaches we could have taken, we chose X because of A, B, and C. We understand it's not for everyone, but we think this is the best way to go as a business."
They've said that repeatedly. They published two preview books that said that. They've posted online and said that. They wrote web articles that said that. They blogged about it. They responded to emails about it. What more could they have done?
It's largely been the fans that have been doing the namecalling, not WotC. WotC called the system broken, but they backed those statements up.
Mearls calling those who don't agree with him idealogues (or ideologues, whichever he meant) isn't name-calling? Andy Collins saying the games we've all been playing (with the 3.5 update he pushed through) are broke -- and by implication, that we'd be idiots for enjoying them -- isn't name-calling?
Look. I was initially over the moon when I heard 4E was coming out. I read every last blog post with excitement, until more and more announcements came about decisions I don't care for. But what really turned me off was the intellectual dishonesty of those Web updates, and the preview books, etc. etc. that amounted to little more than "This is the coolest thing EVAR, the natural evolution of the game, blah, blah" with virtually no substantive discussion about the repercussions of the choices being made. The benefits of the 4E approach very well may outweigh the drawbacks for many, many players. But I expect a more honest acknowledgement of the system's limitations, and a more sincere recognition of the players being written out of the audience than accusations that those players just don't recognize super-duper 4E fun when it's shoved down their throats.
Yeesh. I haven't been this riled by 4E propaganda for weeks. And now Pathfinder's got Monte!
Obviously, Paizo's decision to not directly support 4E has alienated some customers, the same way WotC divorced a significant chunk of the D&D player-base when it opted to toss 30 years of game history in the holy name of gamism.
I don't recall anyone from WotC name-calling someone. They are just saying the new system is better, which is what I expected them to do.
But Paizo seems to be doing pretty damn well without name-calling their previous customers. They're able to call a spade a spade (ie "We're not digging the direction of 4E, we think others agree with us, so we're catering to them") without resorting to "OMG! Pathfinder is so awesome!!!!! It's got gnomes!!!! It's so much better than 4E it's like the second coming of Gygax!!!!!" It also helps that they consulted their customers about their desires rather than designing a radically different game in secret, then telling them what was best for them.
Paizo isn't in the same position of WotC. Paizo has a pretty good customer potential for those who don't like 4E for any number of reasons - it doesn't need to say anything to those who happen to like 4E, and doing that would probably be useless. If you have ever been on WotC boards, you know what do I mean.
WotC, in the other hand, is trying to maintain their existing customer base together while aiming for the true goal of D&D 4E - to attract a new generation of young people to D&D.
To do that, they are obviously going to put arguments that why the new game's philosophy is better than the previous. They are going to do all those annoying things: to say how the new cosmology is sooooo more awesome than the previous one, how the new monsters are sooooo much cooler than those from the previous edition. Many people will not listen to them, but some will certainly do. I myself admit being initially skeptical about 4th edition until I analyzed some of the designers' arguments.
The reason that I've largely written off WotC as a company is not because they feel the need to pimp their product, but because they seem unable to do so without calling those who disagree with them or have concerns whiners and dinosaurs. Hell -- look at some of the recent feedback from playtesters on ENWorld. Those who wrote in concerns about some of the 4E changes have said they were basically written off as "simulationists" and ignored.
Please, don't confuse WotC with its fans. There are 4E fanatics around there offending those who make the slightly objection about 4E's utter and complete awesomeness. Just like, as you probably know, there is the opposite. But I never seen any similar reaction from a WotC designer.
I'd just like WotC to be more honest and say, "There were several different approaches we could have taken, we chose X because of A, B, and C. We understand it's not for everyone, but we think this is the best way to go as a business."
If they'd handled things that way, I still wouldn't buy 4E, but I might pick up the occasional SWSE book or pack of minis. As it is, I don't think I'll be buying anything with the WotC logo on it.
If they have done that, than perhaps I wouldn't be interested on 4E now. When I first read about "Minions" I thought "WTF?!" but after reading some designers' arguments, I now happen to like the idea a lot. Had they previously said "This thing we are going to present is not for everyone...", I would find the entire stuff ridiculous and assume that it's not for me.
Of course, as I said, there ARE people who will never like the new underlying philosophies about the new game, and trying to convice them is useless just like is useless to try to convince a 4E fanatic that Pathfinder is better.
But from my experience, and from my experience on these boards, it seems that many people who have reserves aboout 4E can still be convinced to at least try it. And that's what WotC is trying to do.
Here's why the only question I ask isn't "Is 4e more fun than 3e?"
There are a lot of fun games in the world. If you've got an idea for a fun game, like say, Yetis fighting in the civil war, you can make it, and if it is fun, it will sell.
A while ago, Hasbro (by coincidence, I hope) made a new version of Monopoly, called Monopoly: Here and Now. I don't know how many rule changes there are, but the money is in 21st century denominations, and instead of properties in old Atlantic City, it is famous real estate from around the world, like Trump Towers.
Is it a fun game? I guess someone thought so, I haven't played it. Imagine though, the rancor it would have produced if they had said, we've updated Monopoly, play this now, and taken the classic game off the market.
If Wizards had released a new, easier, more fun version of D&D side by side with D&D and called it "Dungeon & Dragons: World of Dungeoncraft" (Sorry, I don't even buy that argument, I just couldn't resist.) we wouldn't be having this thread. Maybe it would have surpassed its parent and the post colon stuff could be harmlessly dropped in a reprint.
Instead, they are saying this is just an update to the game, and if it weren't for the OGL (which the current staff obviously doesn't approve of it) and Paizo (thanks guys!) that would be the end of it. People would have to make do with existing books, or try to reconstruct the rules like some have done with AD&D.
If you are going to call it the same game, you've got to leave some of the sacred cows around, and you've got make sure there aren't a lot of fans left behind. Otherwise, you've got the second option.
|
|
Those who wrote in concerns about some of the 4E changes have said they were basically written off as "simulationists" and ignored.
Please, don't confuse WotC with its fans. ... But I never seen any similar reaction from a WotC designer.
The playtesters were talking about being written off by the designers, not other ENWorld users.
The playtesters were talking about being written off by the designers, not other ENWorld users.
Okay. Can you provide a link? I'll be fired if I keeping browsing all these boards... =D
It also helps that they consulted their customers about their desires rather than designing a radically different game in secret, then telling them what was best for them.
There is a huge difference between listening to customers, and making a new product entirely based on customer feedback.
The second only works if the sole goal of the new product is to fix "broken" things. Which isn't the goal of 4E, as I made exhaustive arguments in this long thread.
I know that you aren't a Microsoft fan but... don't you agree if it were only for DOS users' opinions, Microsoft would never have made Windows? Instead we would have only improved versions of DOS. I myself hated Windows 3.0 when it came. I found that Windows was... err.. a dumbed down version of DOS for people who don't have the capacity of operating a PC. I skipped Windows 3.0 and went straight for Windows 3.1. It took another year for me to start to do things faster on Windows that I used to do on DOS.
I think a lot of people are really negative about 4E because they invested serious amount of money buying all 950 of the 3.5E splatbooks. And now that these splatbooks are obsolete they're gonna have to save up their money to buy all the 4E splatbooks.
This is something that I see pop up as a "reason" why people hate 4th Edition. I myself had over 100 D&D books, not counting Dungeon Tiles, minis, magazines, etc. I literally had every single official D&D supplement out there.
4th Edition didnt render them obsolete, as I can just as easily play 3rd Edition anytime that I want. I dont have to buy 4th Edition. I dont need to save my money to buy more books (which I would be doing anyway if Wizards was still churning out 3E stuff). Basically, the money is going somewhere, its not a matter of "saving up all over again".If you like 3rd Edition so much, congrat yourself. You just completed a collection. Go, play 3rd Edition. You have five books of monsters, books that deal with a lot of environments (including cities and dungeons), numerous books that focus on specific classes and types of classes, a book on running horror games, a book on running war campaigns. What more did you want?
[offtopic]I know that this isn't the proper place to say that but.. I'm going to stay out of the boards for a while.
It's not anything against anyone - I love you all, even those who disagree with me. Heck, I love even Rass. =D
But I have some urgent issues on my job, and I guess I'm spending more time than I should on these boards.
But I'll be back! See ya![/offtopic]
If you are going to call it the same game, you've got to leave some of the sacred cows around, and you've got make sure there aren't a lot of fans left behind. Otherwise, you've got the second option.
I think trying to adhere to strange traditions is one of 3rd Edition's greatest weaknesses. Keeping things the way they were just for the sake of doing it. I dont understand why people are upset that 4th Edition is keeping the spirit of the game while discarding mechanics thats dont work very well. If thats the D&D you want, you still have it: 3rd Edition.
However, no one is being left behind. They are choosing to get off the wagon, or at least hopping on a different one. Wizards didnt say that, no, you cant play with us, or boot you off. If you arent going to play 4th Edition, then you made that choice yourself. They cant please everyone out there, but they can aim for a majority (which I think they have done).
The thing is, 4th Edition IS D&D. It allows for the exact same experiences that you had before, even if some mechanics are different. People can choose to complain about the strangest things. Gnomes are in the MM, the default cosmology isnt the same, monsters dont have Hit Dice (oh noes!), and wizards can attempt to do useful things most of the time. The fact remains that its still D&D.
[offtopic]I know that this isn't the proper place to say that but.. I'm going to stay out of the boards for a while.
It's not anything against anyone - I love you all, even those who disagree with me. Heck, I love even Rass. =D
But I have some urgent issues on my job, and I guess I'm spending more time than I should on these boards.
But I'll be back! See ya![/offtopic]
Bye, Krauser, and good luck. Thanks for your posts so far, and looking forward to seeing them again, when you have more time.
However, no one is being left behind. They are choosing to get off the wagon, or at least hopping on a different one. Wizards didnt say that, no, you cant play with us, or boot you off. If you arent going to play 4th Edition, then you made that choice yourself.
I strongly disagree with this assessment.
Wizards made very intentional choices to change the game in very significant ways. If they didn't know that a core chunk of their fan base would be alienated by their changes then they are quite stupid. And I don't think they are stupid.They cant please everyone out there, but they can aim for a majority (which I think they have done).
That remains to be seen.
And PHB sales in the next 4 months won't be the telling part. The ability (or lack) to generate a steady flow of sales for several years will be the key. Call it left behind or call it choosing to get off the wagon, either way my circles indicate a net loss. Time will tell.The thing is, 4th Edition IS D&D. It allows for the exact same experiences that you had before, even if some mechanics are different. People can choose to complain about the strangest things. Gnomes are in the MM, the default cosmology isnt the same, monsters dont have Hit Dice (oh noes!), and wizards can attempt to do useful things most of the time. The fact remains that its still D&D.
You are certainly right on that. Of course people choose to complain about some really valid things as well. And further, a lot of people just want to play a great game and don't blindly follow the name "D&D".
Director of Brand Strategy
|
If Wizards had released a new, easier, more fun version of D&D side by side with D&D and called it "Dungeon & Dragons: World of Dungeoncraft" (Sorry, I don't even buy that argument, I just couldn't resist.) we wouldn't be having this thread. Maybe it would have surpassed its parent and the post colon stuff could be harmlessly dropped in a reprint.
Seems to me the result we got was 100% post-colon.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I see it the opposite way - single purpose planes detract from variety and versatility. The Shadowfell has quite a variety of inhabitants, some of which are in conflict. It seems to me that the new cosmology has added more depth and complication to the D&D universe.
I agree with you, CrossWiredMind, to a great extent.
The traditional "Great Wheel" planes are tractless, but, in a way, small. The Astral plane is a whole lot of the same thing. Once you've beated up one githyanki outpost, you've seen it all. Many of the divine outer planes are basically one scene. It's the "Happy Hunting Grounds" and there you are.
Most of the inner planes are even worse: they're inhospitable. The elemental plane of Earth is infinite rock and dirt. If you're lucky, you find a tunnel or two there. How long do you think you can last on the elemenetal plane of fire, the para-elemental plane of ash, or the Negative Material Plane?
The planes are there as origins of things, as lenses to make the Prime Material Planes, as things, as ideals, not necessarily as places.
4th Edition's cosmology, very much like Eberron's sphere structure, has fewer outer planes, but they're intended to be hospitable to mortal life, whether the natives are friendly or not.
I suspect that, in time, more distant planes, with new names, not intended for mortal intrusion, will show up in the 4th Edition cosmology.
|
CEO
|
There is a huge difference between listening to customers, and making a new product entirely based on customer feedback.Henry Ford once said "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."
Interestingly enough, when we were first demoing Magic: The Gathering to folks, we asked them, "Hey, would you be interested in a card game where you had to buy your cards in random packs and create your own deck to pit against someone else who has collected and built their own deck?" The universal answers was "Hell no! I want to buy my card deck and have it be complete. I would NEVER buy a card game like you described." Well, 15 years and who knows how many billions of cards later, they proved Henry Ford's statement. :)
-Lisa
Seems to me the result we got was 100% post-colon.
Heh. I noticed that joke, but I was already pushing the limit of snark in that paragraph so I left it on the table.
|
I think a lot of people are really negative about 4E because they invested serious amount of money buying all 950 of the 3.5E splatbooks. And now that these splatbooks are obsolete they're gonna have to save up their money to buy all the 4E splatbooks.
And they did not get to use them all yet. :)
Or maybe is it that they also took offence that the game they are really enjoying (otherwise they would not buy) being described as not fun by its very authors ?
Seriously, every company sells new products by labelling them "better", yes ?
But what other company flames down its own previous products by devaluing them pubicly ? (example : the power attack rant)
Also seriously, people have different tastes. We are not all clones. I understand why some of you may want a change of taste and system, more power to you. For the same reasons, i want NO change of flavour, and I don't feel like learning a new system at this time.
And no it's not a misinformed choice : we have seen plenty of preview for 4e to decide on our own if we like it or not.
Not to mention that plenty of new elements have been added in late 3e, which are included in core 4e. E;g. : the warlock. i don't like the idea of the 3e warlock and I don't like the mechanics either. since this has been lauded as the pavement on the way to 4e... it's pretty obvious 4e is not for me.
There is an emotional investment that can be found in RPGs that you don't find elsewhere. It requires time and commitment, and you don't change this overnight without some damage.
In the end it all boils down to individual preferences.
Ah the Ideal Logue. An adventure featuring incest, murder and psychological horror.
With sharks.
The Idiot Logue - surely an oxymoron? :D
|
|
Look at car design, a new model comes around every 5-10 years (edition change) and sometimes gets a face-lift in mid-model (just like 3.5).
But I have never seen a car ad that said: "Hey, that car you bought 5 years ago sure looks like a piece of junk! The body panels are so not aerodynamic. We know you get decent gas mileage out of it, and it is comfortable to drive, but really, it is a horrible car. And did we mention it isn't as safe as we said it was? Well then our new car is the car for you, seriously, it is perfect this time!"
A well maintained car can last much longer than the cycle of a new model, nut of course game marketing is slightly different than cars, as games never "expire" the way cars do. But if we can learn anything from the success of the new Mustang, it is that people have a craving for some tradition.